Vesa Perala wrote:
>
> > > My 20-40mm Tamron is superb. Case in point, it is well known that the
> >24mm
> > > Sigma F2.8 is far sharper than the equivalent Canon 24mm F2.8 lens.
> >Again,
> > > not optimistic, just truthful. ;-)
>
> "far sharper"? Really?
> Sharpness alone doesn't make any lens good but I quess we knew that
> already.
>
> I find my EF24/2.8 very good and even if photodo.com gives Sigma
> 2.5% better (3.9 vs. 4.0) rating I wouldn't call any difference
> that small "significant". There must be other tests which I haven't
> seen but I would like to see exact quotation of the test instead of
> a second (or more) generation personal interpretations of it.
>
> In general, aren't we sometimes a bit too much interested in
> nitpicking about small differencies here? Are we experienced enough
> to make this kind of judgements or are we just repeating others who
> possibly don't know any better?
>
> Just mildly agitating the discussion here to get it more interesting...
>
> Vesa
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
OTOH, the Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 rates that same one tenth of a point less
than Canon's 17-35 f2.8L on photodo. But it retails for just over a
third of the Canon price. Which is the better value? How often do you
need f2.8 at 35mm?
Skip
--
Shadowcatcher Imagery
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
